Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1887-08-18

HilllIHS IIC IutulC pony VI IHC
county? Is it expected that the
people will be moved to favor or
oppose particular policy because
some railroad bonds, once upon a
time, proved to be of value to
some private Individuals" If
not, the fact, if such it is, is out of
place in this discussion. IF it is SO
expected, then who are the 'indi-
viduals," where do they live, how
much value" did they receive,
and from whom? If they obtained
the value honestly, they are at lib
erty to kept. If they did not,
and Wood County is the sufferer,
out with the facts and let the peo-
pie know them fully. If "individ-
uals" are to be tried and convicted
of misconduct of any kind, they
are entitled to be convicted upon
the facts, and not by insinuations.
In answer to Mr.. Lathrop's
defiant demand that zone place"
he named where money has been
expended by the county for local
purposes that was not for the
benefit of this section of the
county, he is reminded that the
records of the county show expen-
ditures by it among the several
towns, at various times for roads
and bridges, amounting to $751;
600 or $4,000, or more-being as
much, nearly or quite, as the coun-
ty has expended upon the bridge
and that a statement showing
such facts, compiled from the re-
cords, was used before a Legisla-
tive committee at Madison last
winter. The statement was left at
Madison, and its details are not
readily at hand But the follow
ing items will answer for the
present: One thousand dollars
was expended in 1877 by the coun-
ty upon a road leading from Au-
burndale to point in the Town of
Seneca. In 1881 $3.50 were APP
portioned and paid to the several
towns for bridge purposes. Of
this sum Marshfeld received $500,
Auburndale $500, Lincoln $500,
Rock $500, Rudol ph S4oo-and SO
on, proportionately, among all the
towns. The cities, of course, re-
ceived nothing. Thus Mr.. La
throp's question is answered by
the facts, and they completely dis
prove his assertion that this section
of the county alone has been
benefited by the expenditure of
county money. Mr.. Lathrop tells
us further, asfollows:
THE sentence has reference to
the bill introduced by me in the
Assembly last winter, which
passed the Assembly and was
shattered in a senate committee.
That bill gave the county all of the
rights incident to corporations, as
regards the bridge, which would
have been the right to sell. AS I
told Mr.. Gardner at the time, tie
idea was, if the bill passed, to sell
the bridge to Grand Rapids and
Centralia for a nominal sunz, and
only in case they would not take it
at any Price was it to be made toll
bridge and self-supporting -and
why should it not?"
Mr.. Lathrop's bill was not
"smothered in a senate commit
tee" nor "smothered" at all-unless
to dispose of a bill contrary to his
wishes is to "smother' it. When
the bill reached the Senate it was
referred to standing committee,
in accordance with the usual
course. 1t was publicly discussed
before the committee, after full
notice given to all concerned, by
the friends of the bill, and by
those opposed to it. The senate
committee did not approve of it,
and reported it to the Senate adj
versely. The Senate voted to de-
feat it, as the committee recon-
mended. 1t took the course
usually taken in the consideration
of measures, pending before the
Legislature The bill was met
openly and fairly upon its merits,
and it was openly and fairly beaten
upon its merits. In view of these
facts it is not easy to see what
honorable purpose Mr.. Lathrop
expects to serve by asserting that
the bill was "smothered." But
suppose the bill had passed, what
then? We are told that its object
was to give the county power to
sell the bridge, and that it was
"the idea" to sell it to Grand
Rapids and Centralia for a "nomi-
nal sunni" Whose "idea?" The
proposed legislation was claimed
by its author to be in the interest
of the county-of the people
and to rid them of wrong which